Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]:33649 "EHLO mail-qk0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1950274AbdDYSeq (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:34:46 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h123so67227931qke.0 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] cfg80211: add control port state to struct cfg80211_connect_resp_params To: Johannes Berg , Jouni Malinen References: <1492808507-31224-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1493131210.2609.2.camel@sipsolutions.net> Cc: linux-wireless From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170425_203621_213812_8E7C1405) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:34:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1493131210.2609.2.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 25-4-2017 16:40, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 22:01 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> I have been working on 4-way handshake offloading and one of the >> things discussed was the addition of PORT_AUTHORIZED flag. So >> this is what I came up with, but I suppose wpa_supplicant wants >> to know whether it can expect this attribute or not. One option >> is to have PORT_UNAUTHORIZED flag instead. Another option would >> be introducing it as nl80211 protocol feature although not sure >> if it could be considered as such. What do you guys think? > > I think it could be, but I'm not really sure it matters? > >> + (cr->port_state != CONTROL_PORT_STATE_UNAUTHORIZED && >> + nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_ATTR_PORT_AUTHORIZED)) || >> (cr->req_ie && >> > This doesn't really make sense - why does unspecified equal authorized? I was considering default behavior here for drivers that do not provide this information, ie. drivers not supporting 4-way handshake offload. So wpa_supplicant just looks for the PORT_AUTHORIZED attribute and deals with it without need for checking 4-way handshake offload is supported. Regards, Arend